Holding

An annexure containing a caste certificate is deemed part of the nomination paper and satisfies the declaration requirement of Section 33(2), rendering the nomination valid.

Summary

Ganu Ram contested a Himachal Pradesh assembly seat reserved for Scheduled Castes. His nomination form did not contain the statutory caste declaration, but he attached a Sub‑Divisional Magistrate's certificate stating he belonged to the Lohar caste. The Returning Officer accepted the nomination and Ganu Ram was elected. The defeated candidate, Rishi Ram, challenged the election, arguing that the nomination was invalid under Section 33(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 because the required declaration was not made in the form. The Himachal Pradesh High Court held the nomination invalid and set aside the election. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that an annexed certificate can be treated as part of the nomination paper, thereby satisfying Section 33(2); the High Court’s decision was reversed and the election upheld.

Issues considered

Whether a nomination paper that complies with the prescribed form but includes the required caste declaration via an annexed certificate satisfies Section 33(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Whether such an annexure can be deemed part of the nomination paper for the purpose of a reserved seat.

Legislation cited

Representation of the People Act, 1951s. 100, s. 106, s. 33(2), s. 35, s. 81

Subjects

nomination paperreserved seatscheduled casteannexureliberal interpretationelection lawRepresentation of the People Act

Judgment

=-
63

GANURAM A
,,
RlKHI RAM KAUNDAL AND ORS.

July 17, 1984
B
[P.N. BHAGWATI AND V. BALAKRISHAN ERADI, JJ.]

Representation Of the People Act, 1951-s, J3(2)-Requiren1e11ts of
valid nomination paper-Candidate filing nomination paper y, itho,,t n1akb;g
·declaration prescribed bys. 33(2) on the non1ination forn1 but a11uexb1g rhereto
a certificate to the effect that he belonged to scheduled caste-Whe her req11ire-
c
•
n1ents of s. 3 J( 2) satisfied-Whether nomination paper valid.

Representation oj'the People Act, 195]-:.'. 33(2:-Mu.,f be given liberal
and benevolent interpretation.

S. 33(2) of the Representation of the People Act requires that when D
a nomination paper is filed in respect of a reserved seat in any constituency
there must be a clear sprcification by the candidate of the parficular caste
or tribe to which he belonged and the area in relation to which that caste
or tribe was a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe of the State. The appel-
lant, in order to contest State assembly election filed his nomination paper
E
without making the declaration in the nomin:ttion p.:iper 1 itself
but filed as anncxure thereto a certificate issued by the Sub Divisional
Magistrate certifying that the appellant belonged to a scheduled
caste namely 'Lohar'. The nomination paper was accepted by the Rctur·
niog Officer ?.:nd the appellant successfully contested the election. The
respondent, who lost in the election, challenged the election of the
F
appellant on the ground inter alia that in the absence of the requisitt"
declaration .prescribed bys. 33(2), the nomination paper of the appellant
was invalid and was wrongly accepted. The High Court took the view that
since s. 33 of the Act required that the nomination paper must be in the
prescribed form the filing of any enclosure or certifi_ciite along with form
was not contemplated. Hence this appeal. G

Allowing the appeal,

HELD : When the non1ina ti on paper has been made in the prescribed
form, there ls no legal prohibition again!it the other requisite particulars H
being furnished in a separate paper appc11ded. to the form instead of
64 '
A
SUPREME COURT REPOR TS [l985j l S.C.R.

writing them out in the form itself. The anoexure appended the form
-
should be treated as part of the nomination paper. [67 B-C]

While dealing with nomination papers pertaining to candidates belong·
ing to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, who. for well known historical
reasons, are unfortunately, extremely backward socially, economically and
B
edu_cationally in comparis.:;n with othCr' sections of our people, tb::: Court has
to place a liberal and benevolent interpretation on the provisions contained
ins. 33(2) of the Act rather than adopt a narrow, rigid, tochnical and
purely literal construction. [67 E·F]

S. Sivaswami v. V. Malaika11nan and 01her, [1984] I SCC 296,
c referred to.

In the instant case the requirement of s. 33(2) is fully satisfied. The
certificate which was produced by the appellant as an anoe:t!:ure to the
nomination paper has to be treated as forming part of the nomination paper
D and the declaration contained thoreio that the appellant belongs to the
'Lohar' caste which is admittedly a scheduled caste in the entirety of the
a1 ea concerned, must be understood and treated as a declaration by the
appellant in the nomination form within the meaning of sub·s. (2) of s. 33.
Therefore the High Court was in error in holding that the nomination
paper filed by the appellant. was not valid _and its acceptance by the Return·
E ing Officer was improper. [68D-E; G]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 515 (NCE)
of 1983. ~

Erom the Judgment and Order dated the 7th January, 1983 of
of the IHimachal Pradesh High Court in Election Petition No.
6 of 1982.

V. K. Chitre and B. R. Agarwala for the Appellant.

Dr. N. M. Ghatate for the Respondent.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by -
BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J. This being an election appeal
filed under section I l 6A of the Representation of the People Act,
1951 (hereinafter called 'the Act') calling for urgent determination,
H as soon as the hearing of arguments in the appeal was completed we
announced our decision by passing the following order :
-- GANU RAM 1'. RISH! RAM (B. Eradi J .)

"We are of the view that for reasons which we shall state
65

A
later the nomination paper of the appellant was validly
acce;ted by the Returning Officer and we acc0rdingly . allow
the appeal and set aside the order of the Hig~ Court mvah-
I·
dating the election of the appellant. There will be no order
as to costs of the appeal."
B
We now proceed to set out our reasons for reaching the afore-
said conclusion.

- General Elections to the Himachal Pradesh Vidhan
Sabha were held in May, 1982. Ganu Ram, the appellant c
herein Rikhi Ram Kaunda! (first respondent) and three others had
conte:ied the 23 Gehrwin Assembly Constituency seat which is a
seat reserved for scheduled caste candidates only. Tl;e nominations
filed by all these five candidates had been accepted as valid by the
Returning Officer and the polling took place on May 19, 1982.
• 1he result of the election was announced on May 22, 1982 and the D
appellant was declared elected form the said reserved constituency
by reason of his having secured 7477 votes as against his nearest
rival Rikhi Ram Kaunda! (first respondent) who had polled only
6901 votes.

E
On July 3, 1983 Rikhi Ram Kaunda! filed an election petition
in the High Court under sections 81, 100 and IOI of the Act

- challenging the validity of the election of the appellant on three
grounds. The first ground urged was that the nomination paper
filed by the appellant was not in order inasmuch as it did not
contain any declaratio,; by !lie appellant specifying the particular F
caste of v.hich, he is a member and •he area in relation to which
the said caste has been declared to be a scheduled caste in the State.
On this basis it was contended that the nomination paper of the
appellant had been improperly accepted by. the Returning Officer.
The second ground of objection raised was that since the appellant

- had not made any declaration in the nomination paper 1egarding
the pirticular scheduled caste to which he belonged, he should be
deemed.to be disqualified for being chosen to fill the seat in question
G

.-23- Gehrwin reserved constituency-in view of the mandatory
pr.ovisions contained in sub·section (2) of section 33 of the Act.
The thicd ground of objection put forward was that the appellant
·did not. as a n1'tter of fact, belong to any of the castes which had
•.been decfared as sch :'duled castes in relation to the State of •H
66 SUl'REME COURT REPORTS (1985] I s.c.H.
A Himachal Pradesh and hence he was not qualified to stand sa a
candidate from the aforesaid reseved constituency.
-
'
Th.e Hig~ .court upheld the first two objections raised by
the elect1on-pcht1oncr which related to the question of validity of
the nomination p<.per and set aside the election of the appellant
B holding that the nomination paper of the appellant could not be
regarded as valid in view of the fact that it did not contain· a
declaration by the' 'appellant specifying the particular caste of
which he is a member and the area in relation to whicht he said

c
caste is a ~cheduled caste in the State. The third contention by the
respondent-election petitioner was however, rejected by the High
Court since the Court found on a considetation of the evidence
-
adduced in the case that the appellant did, in fact, belong to the
'Lobar' caste which has been declared as a schedule caste in the
State of Himachal Pradesh. Aggrieved by the judgment of the
High Court setting aside his election and unseating him, the appellant
D has come up to this Court with this appeal.
•
Section 33 of the Act deals with the topic of presentation of
nomination paper and requirements for a valid nomination. Sub-
section (2) of the said section which alone 1s relevant for our present
purpose reads :
E
"(2) In a costitucncy where any seat is reserved, a
candidate shall not be deemed to be qualified to be chosen
to fill that seat unless his nomination paper contains a
declaration by him specifying the particular caste or tribe
of which be is a member and the area in relation to which
F th't caste or tribe is a Scheduled Caste or, as the case may
be, a Scheduled 1ribe of the State."

It is not disputed that in the nomination form filed by the
appellant aiid his pr,oposer, no written declaration had been made
specifying the caste to which the appellant belongs and the area in
G relation to which that caste is a scheduled caste of the State. But
it is common ground that along with the nomination paper the
appellant had filed as an annexure thereto a certificate issued by the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ghumarwin certifying that the appellant
belonged to a scheduled caste namely 'Lohar'. The said certificate
was appended to the nomination paper obviously with the sole
purpose and intention of making it known to the Returning Officer '
ll and all others concerned that the appellant is filing bis nomination
GANU R~ilf v. RISlll RAM (B. Eradi, J.) 67

- as a candidate belonging to a scheduled caste namely 'Lohar' and it A
was in proof of that assertion and for eliminating doubt or contra·
versy in the matter that the Sub Divisional Magistrate's certificate
was prod•iced. The High Court has taken the view that since section
33 of the Act requires that the nomination paper must be in the
prescribed form and Form 2B is a self-contained one, the filing of
any, enclosure or certificate along with the Form is not contemplated. B
We are unable to agree with this view. When the nomination paper
has been Ihade in the prescribed form there is no legal prohibition
against the other requisite particulars being furnished in a separate

- paper appended to the form instead of writing them out in the form
itself. This is very ·often done in the matter of filing retnrns of
Income-tax, Wealth-tax etc. Jn such cases the annexure appended
c
to the. form should be treated as part of the nomination paper.· We
are therefore of opinion that the certificate which was produced by
the appellant as an annexure to the nomination paper has to be
.treated as forming part of the nomination paper and the declaration
contained therein that the appellant belongs to the scheduled caste D
of 'Lohar' must ·be understood and treated as a declaration by the
appellant in the' nomimtion form within the meaning of sub-section
(2) of 'section 33. We have to remember that we are dealing with
nomination papers pertaining to· candidates belonging to scheduled
.castes and scheduled tribes, who, for well known historical reasons, E
are unfortunately, extremely backward socially, economically and
educationally in comparaison with other sections of our people. In
s11ch a context. we consider that the Court has to place a liberal and
benevolent interpretation on the provisions contained in eection 33 (2)
-_.I
of the Act rather than adopt a narrow, rigid, technical and· purely
·1\teral construction Tn S. Sivaswami v. V. Ma/aikannan and Oihers,' 11 F
·which was also a case arising under the Act, one of us speaking on
hchalf.of a three Judge Bench of this Court had occasion to make the
following observations
1
which are apposite to the present context
also: · •

"Jn this context it is necessary to remember that nearly
90 per cent of the electorate in this country consists of illite- G
rate and uneducated rural.folk totally unacquainted with the
intricacies of the rules & technicalities of procedure pertain-
ing to elections. Even if the best of endeavour is made to
explain to them such complicated rules and procedures they
. ' "' may not be capable of grasping and fully understanding all
ihe implications and" actually carrying them into effect
(I) [1984] t sec 296, H
llll' r .
6S SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] l s.c.R.

A while exercising their franchise. If the right conferred on
the people to choose their representatives to the State Legis-
latures and the Parliament through t.he proces of free and
fair elections is to be meaningful the will of the illiterate and
unsophisticated voter expressed through a marking on the
ballot paper which though not strictly inside the column
B of the particular candidate is clearly indicative of the
identity of the candidate for whom the vote is cast has tq be
respected and given its full effect."

"c
It is manifest that the legislative purpose underlying sub-
section (2) of section J3 of the Act is that when a nomination
--
paper is filed in respect of a reserved seat ·in any constituency there
must be a clear specification by the candidate of the particular
ca>te or tribe to which he belongs and the area in relation to
which that caste or tribe is a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe of
D the State. This requirement is fully satisfied in the present case
because by producing the certificate of the Sub-Divisional Magis-
trate as an annexure to his nomination paper the appellant had
clearly made it known that he was filing the nomination as a
candidate belonging to the 'Lohar' caste, which is admittedly a
scheduled caste in the entirety of the area of the State of Hima-
E chal Pradesh. It is also significant that no objection whatever
was raised against the nomination filed by the appellant at the
time of scrutiny. The Returning Officer had published a notice of
nominations under section 35 of the Act and in the said notice
-
it was expressly stated that the appellant had filed his nomination
F as a eandidate belonging to the scheduled caste namely 'Lobar'.
Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case and
the legal position as explained above, we consider that the High
Court was in error in holding that the nomination paper filed by
the appellant was not valid and its acceptance by the Returning
G Officer was improper·

A faint attempt was made before us by the learned counsel
-
appearing on behalf of the first respondent to make out that the
finding entered by the High Court that the appellant does, in fact,
belong to the scheduled caste 'Lobar' is erroneous and unsupported
ff by the evidence but we sec no merit at all in the said contention·
GANV RAM v. RISH! RAM (B. Eradi, J) G9'
-.
The said finding recorded by the High Court is hereby coufirmed. A

The conclusion that emerges from the foregoing discussion is
that the High Court was not justified in setting -aside the election
of the appellant on the ground that the nomination paper filed by
the appellant was invalid. It follows thnt this appeal has to be B
al owed and the order of the High Court invalidating the election
of the appellant has to be set aside.

H.S.K.
• Appeal allowed.